This couple could very easily get all the lefties to stop criticizing and even to admire them. All they have to do is keep the Biblical quotations to themselves and just tell people they're really into BDSM, she's the M and he's the S, she really likes to be disciplined, he really enjoys disciplining her, and who are you to judge? They can be totally traditional in the privacy of their own home and totally transgressive in public. Win-win!

Now, that's funny — and Instapundit twists the humor by saying if the public display of religion were Muslim (rather than Christian), the lefties would refrain from criticizing. I see the humor, but I'm going to take the underlying concepts seriously.

1. Are the lefties criticizing? The linked article is the lefty (politely lefty) website Talking Points Memo (which links to a WaPo article). I see "This post has been updated," so maybe it was nastier before, but I see a pretty neutral account of the beliefs of Rep. Steve Pearce (R-NM), with verbatim quotes from his memoir and from his spokesman who says that The Washington Post misread the book, which in fact shows that "Pearce believes the phrase 'submission' is widely misunderstood in society and criticizes those who distort the bible to justify male dominance." TPM quotes a passage of the book that the spokesperson said shows what Pearce really thinks:

"I reasoned that surely Jesus did not in any way teach the idea of a chauvinistic male-centered marriage.... We are all created in God’s image, I reasoned, so it could not be that the man is in some way superior or the wife inferior."

That's TPM, and that post was updated, so maybe there are lefties somewhere criticizing, but if that's the way you think, aren't you displaying the very close-mindedness of which you'd like to accuse those terrible lefties?

Here's the underlying WaPo piece, which has an update appended to the text of its original article. WaPo quotes the Bible passage ("the book of Ephesians says wives should 'submit to their husbands in everything'"), recounts the Pearce's struggle to make sense of it, rather than to ignore it as "[m]any of their friends" did, and quotes Pearce's opinion that it is not a basis for husbands to "bully their wives and families" or to claim "authoritarian control."

WaPo notes that "Democrats in recent years have repeatedly attacked Republicans for their views on and comments about women's issues," and that "Since that election, GOP leaders have sought to coach their members on how to be more sensitive when talking about women's issues." That is, WaPo refers to the potential for Pearce's words to be used against him, the propensity of Democrats to do exactly that, and the way GOP leaders worry about candidates that give Democrats any raw material. That's pretty damned balanced. I guess you can say that WaPo made the Democrats look like lefties who pounce on anything to push the old war-on-women theme, but let some Democrats step forward then and trash Pearce for reading the Bible and trying to understand it in the context of a loving, equality-minded couple. What Pearce is saying is the typical stuff of modern American church sermons, and liberals have heard and absorbed these sermons too.

2. Sexual behavior of the domination-and-submission variety has to do with individuals discovering what amuses them on a purely physical level. I don't see anyone of any prominence in America recommending submissive sexuality as a matter of principle or as something to be imposed on women who don't independently and enthusiastically enjoy it. Quite the opposite. I see some men wanting the submissive role. And some women needing encouragement — because it seems politically incorrect — to go ahead and enjoy submission if that's what they find sexually exciting. But I'm not seeing any conspicuous talk of imposing sexual submission on nonvolunteers. That behavior occurs, and when it does, in this country, we call it a crime. When's the last time you heard an American take the position that within a marriage rape is impossible?

3. What's "totally traditional" is to put devotion to religion above one's immediate sexual pleasures. If you go public flaunting your enjoyment of domination and submission, you're conveying a message that is completely the opposite of what is traditional and that has no power to persuade others to do anything because of religion or because of tradition. Your only message is: Whatever turns you on.

Now, it might turn you on to pretend to believe that God requires you to submit to your sexual partner. And in traditional societies where people believe God requires submission, women may adapt by eroticizing subordination. But what religion gives you extra credit for finding the fulfillment of sexual requirements sexy?

The answer to that question is actually not obvious, and feel free — it's a free country — to explore the nuance. I can imagine some proponents of religion saying that the true believer, doing anything God requires, feels free and joyful. God may seem to be saying what old-school parents say to children: You're going to do it and you're going to like it. As they say in The Book of Common Prayer: "O God... whose service is perfect freedom...."

What is the point in arguing with God? It's not like he is asking for your opinion. Maleness and femaleness are states of nature, they are not societal, cultural or political constructs. And the differences are good, not bad. Pretty cool, actually.

You wanna read how a true master of this subject works it? Here's the Swiss/English Methodist divine John Fletcher (1729 -1785)on his impending marriage (1781 at age 52) to Mary Bosanquet:

I have a new call to pray for the fulness of Christ's holy, gentle, meek, loving Spirit, that I may love my wife as He loved His spouse, the Church. But the emblem is greatly deficient: the Lamb is worthy of His spouse, and more than worthy, whereas I must acknowledge myself unworthy of the yokefellow whom heaven has reserved for me. She is a person after my own heart, and I make no doubt that we shall increase the the number of happy marriages in the Church Militant. Indeed they are not so many, but that it may be worth a Christian's while to add one more to their number....Had I searched the three kingdoms, I would not have found one brother willing to share gratis my weal, woe, and labors, and complacent enough to unite his fortunes to mine; but God has found me a partner, a sister, a wife, to use St. Paul's language, who is not afraid to face with the colliers & bargemen of my parish, until death us. Buried together in our country village, we shall help one another to trim our lamps & wait...for the coming of the heavenly bridegroom.

Well this is news, how? Pearce could say anything and be vilified by the liberal media (Santa Fe-Albuquerque centric) that is horrified that a republican has a congressional seat in New Mexico. NM has been californicated so this is unacceptable.

That it works for some who have sweet marriages whether because of or despite any philosophy of submission, is a wonder. And different from a political photo-op.

There must a final ending to the Richard Burton/Elizabeth Taylor romp through "The Taming of the Shrew" that’s better than Taylor’s anemic Katrina bowing in voluntary submission to the lout. Perhaps Mary Pickford’s interpretation at the end of the 1929 version, where she winks at her sister, her faux voluntary submission the heart of her ultimate control over him, and her husband, Petruchio, either too dumb or too satisfied with the photo-op political charade of outward appearances to care about the difference.

Seems to me that control isn’t needed where there’s trust. And control isn’t a surrogate for trust, just a misplacement.

This couple could very easily get all the lefties to stop criticizing and even to admire them. All they have to do is keep the Biblical quotations to themselves and just tell people they're really into BDSM, she's the M and he's the S, she really likes to be disciplined, he really enjoys disciplining her, and who are you to judge? They can be totally traditional in the privacy of their own home and totally transgressive in public. Win-win!

I make all the big decisions in our marriage. Those decisions are all in accordance with my beautiful wife's wishes. If they turn out badly, it is my fault. If they turn out well, it is only because of her wise guidance.

Keep it up Republican men, it's all good, more fuel to fire up the wimmins for 2014 and 2016. Republican men are the Democrat's secret weapon. Some Republicans obviously think everyone is a evangelical Christian, but For goodness sake, don't stop, keep It up, all the way to voting day.

I'm not an evangelical Christian. I'm Roman Catholic. This isn't my preferred theological language. But I understand where these sort of people are coming from, because they represent a major cultural force in American & world history. Why is it hard to understand their "rhetorical tropes" as just one of many in our culture, and let it go at that? It's their marriage, after all. I mean, really, don't you roll your eyes when yet one more Hollywood spoiled nitwit blathers on about "social justice" as s/he has a fucking clue as to what that might mean? But "social justice" is just one more lefty meme du jour, and we all know what they're trying to say. Why not cut the conservative Christians the same slack?

Hey Inga! There's a whole city in Michigan with folks that think the same way. Dearborn. They're called "Muslims." They're everywhere, actually. I don't see you caterwauling about them. Maybe you should get to know them and their views on the role of women in society and family.

Gahrie, until conservatives stop trying the legislate their personal religious belief system onto all of the citizens of the US, it IS of utmost importance to win elections. Separation of church and state has been trashed by conservatives.

Oooops! I guess the Civil Rights Movement & the Liberation Theologians just didn't get the memo!

Seriously, it drives me bat-shit to hear this canard repeated when the most successful social/religious movements on American soil in the past 150 years have been "liberal" ones (abolitionist, temperance, "social gospel", and civil rights).

So they are both supposed to be fully invested in the marriage? The tragedy! Horror! Sound the red alert saxons!

In my experience there is one heck of a difference between a man and a woman, and the differences are elemental and instinctive. If a man feels he has the responsibility to lead, he's fully invested. The woman will hang out leading and supporting from behind, but he's got to feel that he has the duty to make it work, because that's how guys work. He just knows how to do it then, and he's also PROUD of doing it.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, gender is a social construct, but it's not. It's really not. And, OMG (red alert saxons again), one of the big reasons why is because human children are very vulnerable for a long time, so there's a set of biological instincts that come into human mating relationships.

So much of modern culture seems to consist of transforming the merely hard into the nearly impossible. I fail to see the point in making life any harder than it is already.

A true leader figures out the goal and how to make it work, but does so in consultation because if it is his job to lead, he knows instinctively that he has to make sure that all his followers can effectively play the parts he has mentally assigned to them. And yes, sometimes that means he is picking up the pieces when things aren't going well.

And for heaven's sake, in a traditional marriage, esp. with kids, the woman had enough damn responsibilities already. Women who were raised around men can understand themselves why the stated pattern works, but women who weren't really need to hear it.

This is one of the few sensible things I've heard from a politician lately, and I wish I could vote for the guy!

Hey Inga! There's a whole city in Michigan with folks that think the same way. Dearborn. They're called "Muslims." They're everywhere, actually. I don't see you caterwauling about them. Maybe you should get to know them and their views on the role of women in society and family.

So, you need to get to know a Muslim before you can understand a conservative? Whoa, if true!

Inga said..."until conservatives stop trying the legislate their personal religious belief system onto all of the citizens of the US, it IS of utmost importance to win elections."

Inga's response is not surprising. Lefties consider Muslims allies in their war against our traditional Judeo-Christian culture. The fact that Islam is antithetical to what the lefties claim they believe shows that their primary goal is to destroy Christianity not the issues they claim to hold dear.

Funny how Fen says I'm bigoted against Muslims and Drago seems to think I love them. So women should shut up and be grateful it's not a Muslim theocracy, correct? I am happy to be living in a modern country in which women are not treated less humanley than a goat or sheep, but American women do not need to be told to be grateful they don't live in a Muslim hell hole when they voice their opinions, that makes you sound ignorant.

Inga said: "until conservatives stop trying the legislate their personal religious belief system onto all of the citizens of the US."

Inga, my beliefs were mainstream not all that long ago. What happened since then? Why the hard core left legislated their belief system onto all the citizens of the US. When the left couldn't legislate, commie pinko left wing judges came to the rescue.

Inga said..."Illuninati, that is beneath you, you stoop to lying now? I have never stated any support for the Muslim relgion, or even Muslim people, hence Fen calling me bigoted against Muslims in other threads."

When we had a discussion about the Balkans, you made statements which appeared to support the Muslims against the Serbs. That is understandable if you were working with the Americans who made war against the Serbs.

The support of the left for Islam is strong and ongoing. In England, after Margaret Thatcher rescued England from the ditch, Tony Blair deliberately opened the country to massive immigration from the third world, much of it Islamic. This was done deliberately without the consent of the English people. The native English who are trying to save their culture are routinely slandered with the terms racist and Islamaphobe. His sister has even converted to Islam. Anyone who speaks out against Islam is persecuted or jailed.

Sweden also has a growing problem with Islamic immigrants who have been welcome by their leftist government. A large percent of the rapes in Sweden are committed by Muslims. The answer from the lefties is more immigration. You see, the native population must acculturate to Islam, not the other way around.

Illuninati, the Bosnian Muslim women I worked with drank alcohol, ate pork, were strong and outspoken, worked outside the home, drove cars and were educated. Because I admired them does not equate to me being pro Muslim.

Abdul - that pretty much sums it up in a way, but a lot is left unexplicated. Such as that if the man has the responsibility to make the decision, and it is understood that he does, then his wife has the freedom to make a pretty strong argument that he's heading the wrong way WITHOUT being disloyal, because she's still going to go with it if he feels he's right, so she's just making sure he has all the facts she knows, which is her job as a good follower. He may be irritated by what he hears, but he won't be hamstrung.

And men have to feel that loyalty. A woman can't afford to have to drag an insecure man around when things get rough, and the man will get insecure if he doesn't feel that loyalty.

So the paradox is that in a relationship that's theoretically equal with "fully shared" decision making, the woman can find herself much less free to tell her husband that he's really being an ass when he desperately needs to hear it. Not to mention vice a versa, but if the man's supposed to be the leader, then he can just make the decision when his wife really is being an ass without having to explain to her why she is an ass, which frankly is less painful and more efficient.

Another aspect of it is that instinctively, if the man is assigned the leadership role and he screws up, his mind will turn automatically to the "strategy to cope", whereas it's supposed to be an equal relationship and things screw up because of his bad choice, he's just going to feel like a failure in an elemental way, like he failed the woman. And that messes him up badly. He's stuck. He's insecure. He doesn't know which way to jump.

The alternative is to have the woman basically make all the decisions, but a woman so dumb as to marry a man who can't make better decisions than her at least some of the time probably can't assume that role successfully.

One of the Catholics who post here could answer that question better than I. I do know that the Catholic church is centered around worship of Jesus. As long as the members believe in Jesus, the Catholic church seems to be quite tolerant of other beliefs.

In Islam Mohammad is everything. His words are Allah's exact words. Mohammad's life is the standard by which every Muslim is to measure his own life. I don't see any room for someone to deliberately disobey the Koran and still call themselves Muslims. Perhaps they excuse their disobedience by claiming that the original teachings were dictated by culture, but that really won't fly.

Inga said..."Most Bosnian Muslims I've met and interacted with considered themselves Muslims, went to relgious services rarely, similar to some Jewish people who aren't particularly religious."

The Jews have a common ancestry which means they are an ethnic group or tribe. Judaism is the tribal religion. Jews have more than a common set of beliefs which unite them.

Arabs might be similar to the Jews since Islam started among them and since Mohammad was Arab. The Koran is written in their language. The Bosnian Muslims don't have that tribal connection. If they don't accept mainstream Muslim beliefs, I'm puzzled why they would consider themselves Muslim, unless they actually believe the Koran much more than you recognized

Ashkenazi Jews are not of any Jewish tribe, they are ethnic Europeans. I recall reading that they had a king way back when, that chose Judaism as a state relgion. Muslims in the Balkins are also ethnic Europeans who became Muslim under the rule of the Turks. Both sets of Europeans kept their religious identities throught the generations, but that doesn't mean that all or most of them remained devout.

Inga said:"Ashkenazi Jews are not of any Jewish tribe, they are ethnic Europeans. I recall reading that they had a king way back when, that chose Judaism as a state relgion."

You are probably referring to the Khazars who were a Turkish people. There may have been some intermarrying between the Khazars and the Ashkenazi Jews but this seems to be minor. Genetic testing of Ashkenazi Jews indicates that they are the real deal. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/khazars.html

"Historians and scientists today believe the Khazarian theory should more accurately be called a myth. The theory, which claims that today's Ashkenazi Jews are descendants of the Khazar empire that had converted to Judaism, has been widely spread on the Internet and is often associated with anti-Israeli pro-Palestinian groups as well as antisemitic circles.A 2013 study of Ashkenazi mitochondrial DNA found no significant evidence of Khazar contribution to the Ashkenazi Jewish DNA, as would be predicted by the Khazar hypothesis and although there is no historical or DNA evidence to support the Khazar idea, it is still popular in Arab states."

Inga: "Most Bosnian Muslims I've met and interacted with considered themselves Muslims, went to relgious services rarely, similar to some Jewish people who aren't particularly religious."

This is pretty much on the mark.

The reason is that Tito and communists were so thorough in their control of the masses in Yugoslavia that religion was driven underground or just about completely wiped out.

I've spoken with a number of Albanian members of Campus Crusade who have served all over Albania and have traveled extensively throughout many of the "old" Yugoslavian areas and they tell us that most of citizens call themselves muslim but don't really act on it or even know what it really means.

The only time the muslim identity reared up was in conflict with the christians.

Ethnic cleansing is something that was done by both sides before Clinton ordered troops in on the side of the muslims.

Of course, that conflict between those parties in that area goes back 1300 years.

Inga: "Why do some Catholics use birth control? They may disagree with that teaching but still consider themselves Catholic. Life is in shades of gray, nothing is ever black and white."

Consider is the key word. They (they...the arrogance of man) may consider themselves still Catholic but they are living in sin, and know it , and continue to do it. If they were faithful Catholics, they would go to confession, stop using birth control and pray for forgiveness.It is NEVER ok to use birth control for a Catholic. There is no grey area.

No, it isn't similiar. Jews are a people as well as a religion. You can be an atheist and entirely hostile to every aspect of the Jewish faith and still consider yourself Jewish and be considered Jewish by others, as long as you have a Jewish mother and have not converted to another religion. You are not a Christian or Muslim if you deny the central beliefs of those faiths, even if you were raised in them.

Of course you can be a lax Catholic (I am), but the lax,secularized Muslim is becoming a rarer and rarer bird in today's world. The young Muslims in France and England today are much more radicalized and fundamentalist than their parents and grandparents were. Headscarves were rare in places like Egypt,Turkey and Indonesia a generation ago; now they are commonplace. The Islamic world is becoming more and more radically militant and fundamentalism is spreading in Bosnia as well. Inga's looking at a shrinking minority of Muslims and declaring that they represent Islam as a whole. No they don't. That's not the direction the Islamic world is moving in.

It's no wonder Inga has missed one of the clearest international trends of our time - she's too busy fretting about those scary Christians. She's clearly poorly read, but one novel has made a huge impression on her - the vastly overrated "A Handmaid's Tale," which she takes as some sort of GOP blueprint for the future. OOOOhhhh, noes, those terrible Christian conservatives! They want to make us baby-making slaves!!! Save us, Wendy Davis!

Young Hegelian, that's a beautiful quote from Fletcher, but it's a bit too subtle for the likes of Inga and garage.

Inga, from your link at 10:43 PM, it doesn't look cut and dried re the European origins rather than Near Eastern:

"But some scientists question these conclusions. 'While it is clear that Ashkenazi maternal ancestry includes both Levantine [Near Eastern] and European origins—the assignment of several of the major Ashkenazi lineages to pre-historic European origin in the current study is incorrect in our view,' physician-geneticists Doron Behar and Karl Skorecki of the Rambam Healthcare Campus in Israel, whose previous work indicated a Near Eastern origins to many Ashkenazi mitochondrial types, wrote in an e-mail to The Scientist. They argue that the mitochondrial DNA data used in the new study did not represent the full spectrum of mitochondrial diversity."

Inga said:"Ashkenazi Jews are not ethnic jewish people, as Balkan Muslims are not Arabs."

I don't see how you expect to support that statement. If you look more closely at the site you linked to (in the fifth paragraph), you will find the following:"To further investigate the matrilineal lines of the Ashkenazi Jews, Richards and colleagues looked at mitochondrial genome sequences in living Jews and non-Jews from the Near East, Europe, and the Caucasus. Based on the results, the team concluded that, in contrast to the evidence for many Ashkenazi males, whose Y chromosomal DNA suggests a likely origin in the Near East, the female lineage of Ashkenazi Jews have substantial ancestry in Europe."

Your article admits that there is strong evidence that the male DNA in Ashkenazi Jews is from the Middle East. In other words, they are Jews. The debate is on the maternal side. Apparently the Jewish men often married gentile women who converted to Judaism. Your link also refutes the Khazar theory.http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37821/title/Genetic-Roots-of-the-Ashkenazi-Jews/

"Gahrie, until conservatives stop trying the legislate their personal religious belief system onto all of the citizens of the US, it IS of utmost importance to win elections. Separation of church and state has been trashed by conservatives."

How anyone could write such stupidity is beyond me, and yet I see it written so often as to make me pray for my fellow man.

We all legislate based on our personal religious belief system. Call yourself an atheist if you like, you will legislate based on those views.

Rape? Illegal because of your personal belief system.

Murder? Illegal because of your personal belief system.

Theft? Illegal because of your personal belief system.

Shall I go on?

How incredibly lame it is that people think we ought to legislate based on something else.

What else is it that we ought to base our legislation on? Your personal belief system?

Yes at some point these European women chose Judaism. According to Jewish tradition it is the lineage of the mother that determines if the child is Jewish, but that doesnt really pertain here. However it's a fact that Ashkenazi Jews have a great deal of European DNA.

It's fairly typical that Inga is desperately moving the goalposts to defend a theory favored by people who think the only problem with the repeated attempts by Arabs to drive the Jews into the sea is they failed.

I mean, yeah, sure, her initial claim was that they weren't Jewish in ethnicity at all but an entire kingdom of converts, and now it's merely that they had some intermarriage, but no level of refutation will stop Inga from claiming she was right when she repeated a theory beloved of those who want a Second Holocaust.

Steven that is so incredibly moronic. I don't mind being wrong about just HOW much European DNA Ashkenazi Jews carry. I married a Jewish man myself, my children are half Jewish genetically. It doesn't matter to me one way or another how ethnically European Ashkenazi Jews are. It was brought up in a discussion about some European Muslims not being particularly devout, I compared them to some European Jews who are also not particularil devout. The level of asshattery has risen enough for me to go to bed and leave you good Christians to your own devices.

"The Bosnian Muslims don't have that tribal connection. If they don't accept mainstream Muslim beliefs, I'm puzzled why they would consider themselves Muslim, unless they actually believe the Koran much more than you recognized"

If you ask a Serb or read Black Lamb and Grey Falcon , you will learn that Bosnian Muslims were city dwellers who chose to convert to Islam for reasons of self interest while Serbs remained in a tribal setting.

The Serbs hate the Bosnian Muslims because they are seen as choosing Islam for reasons of self interest. Under the Turks, the city Muslims did pretty well.

Eric,How about following the Consitution and the Bill of Rights. That would be a good start, so our forefathers thought. They made a point of seperatimg church and state, no?

The Founding Fathers certainly didn't want the church to be the foremost authority in the land, but what principles do you think the Constitution was based on? Are you saying that there is no moral/religious foundation involved in the laws of our land?

What does the First Amendment say about religion? Certainly not what the left believes it does, and I'm thinking specifically about the organization called The Freedom From Religion Foundation as a great example.

It occurs to me that there's a lot of projection that goes on in this topic. Libtard women want to marry libtard men, because they think, bless their pink little hearts, that they are superior to the non-libtard breed we call "men.'

Libtards have always had a radically inflated idea of their own intelligence and maturity, and libtard women, of course, are no exception. So they overestimate their ability to take on the leadership of a household and run it at the same time - like a ship captain who tries to be his own First Mate and senior chief at the same time. It's disastrous.

But even libtard women can figure out that their libtard men aren't worth submitting to, because this self-loathing bunch of sitzpinklers aren't worthy of respect from anyone.

And so of course libtard women don't want to submit to their pathetic husbands. The problem is, these women project libtard faults onto the rest of us. And so do the men. They assume that conservative and moderate men must be as pathetic and weak as they are.

Which is why they think pajama boy projects a positive image for them.

Both the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee have held training for candidates on how to talk about women and how to best communicate with female voters.

How to talk to women? But it is OK for feminist candidates to beat on men? Please, let us have only honesty and then we voters can decide. Lies and deceit come soon enough without candidates pretending to be what you are not.

I know, "a slip of the lip can sink a ship" and we can ask Richard Mourdock.

Lets see if I get this right: I am supposed to "submit" to a government that pays for abortions; I am supposed to "submit" when that government tells me gay marriage is OK ; I am to smile and nod when the "religion of peace" wants "infidels" to submit; but this successful, God fearing man, who is not forcing his views on anyone, uses the word "submit" (and remember the Bible wasn't written in English) and he is the devil incarnate. I am confused.

Of course it's not. It's biological, which is why it really grates when leftists proclaim their adherence to scientific principles, all the while ignoring biology and even attacking biology as a political "construct" when it comes to asserting certain things as "rights".

The reason leftists need it to mischaracterize biological differences as a political construct is so they can then justify the use of politics to dismantle it.

For example, the gay left advocated are often fond of quoting biological science when talking about how other species have individual animals that are homosexual, but then turn right around and directly contradict their biology argument by claiming that biology and more specifically, heterosexuality is a construct of western society, used to oppress others and that men can be women and women can be men.

That's how you get more idiot, anti- biological science words, like "heteronormative" and the other fraudulent activity, called Gender and Racial "Studies", that are merely leftwing political pigs tarted up with scholarly lipstick.

And in THAT culture, if you can get your stupidity published in a "peer reviewed journal" aka; the leftist choir your paper is preaching to, regardless of adherence to reality, you are judged a "success" and a "scholar". It's a giant GIGO loop.

The incoherence is never noted, but rather, emotionalist appeals are then made to hand waive away their anti-science assertions.

One can stay completely away from making silly, anti-science pronouncements like "gender is a construct" and advocate for the right of homosexuals to marry.

As a man, I say if my wife needs something should I provide it for her? Or should I just say screw it and buy myself that Harley?Marriage is a two way street and both sides give something up to get something in return.Hint, what you get in return is much better than what you give up, a lifetime of love and devotion.

Yes we should take your marriage advice President Mom Jeans. Iv'e lost track of the number ex wives you've said you to wanted to shoot. I suggest you continue to work on your wooden bowls, and pet your kitty, that'll keep you out of jail.

God does require submission, but not with a sadomasochistic directive. It is a duality which chains both the husband and wife to each other. It requires trust, loyalty, and accountability. There are variable requirements of a husband and wife that arise from the different natures of men and women and the roles engendered.

There is no evidence that God supports domination of one individual by another. In fact, there are strict standards with repercussions when one person seeks to dominate another. For example, neither a producer nor a consumer will have dominion over the other, whether through coercion, fraud, or any other form of leverage.

thank you God , thank you Dr Olumo, after a long time of sorrow and heartbreak dr Olumo you have brought back joy and happiness in my life, i met dr olumo through a friend who he helped as well then i told him about my problem, i've been having problems with husband for about three months i'm suspecting his seeing another woman and he starting getting weird and uncaring to me and he told me wanted a divorce, i didnt know what to do, i pleaded with him not to leave me and my kid alone but his mind was so made up nothing knowing he has been held against his wish by this other woman, i was so sad and unhappy then my friend told about his man God 'dr olumo,at first i didnt really believed him but when my insisted i should try him so i contact him and explained everything to me and the just asked to stop crying that my husband will come back home in 24hours and apologize to me, i didnt believe him,but God so my husband did came home the next day and said baby i'm sorry i will never leave for any other.i was shocked and overwhelmed.. i writing this testimony in appreciation for what dr olumo as done in my life and also to tell who ever needs Gods intervention in his or her life that Dr olumo is a true man of God and you should give him a trail to solve the impossible.contact dr Olumo on drolumohomeofsolution@gmail.com +2348106176523 text number +2349035817525.